Agree but Watkins is nowhere near the class of Sarginson at centre.

Just a point on the dropped ball. It would have been a drop out under the posts regardless if he caught it clean as Inglis was hitting him just 3 yards from the try line and would have taken him over. He should have caught it no reason really not to. But the outcome was going to be the same. From an England point of view i would be more worried about the poor ability of Watkins in defence. Missed tackle and poor reading is hurting a lot more than anything anyone else did and that includes the refs.

The thing with Sarginson is he's really just turning in to the player he was expected to become when he was first coming through at London. He was very highly thought of and there was always talk that we wouldn't be able to keep him in league. Unfortunately for him (but probably good for us) his form went west and his progress was halted playing in a shocking London side and he needed a move to get him going in the right direction again.

The lad could be very good. I was worried earlier in the year that he was going backwards because he was making so many bad calls with the ball but around August time something clicked for him and his decision making has been superb ever since. His link up with Burgess is very impressive and if Charnley was to make way I'd possibly be looking to get that link going next week on the left with Hall shifting to the right to link with his Leeds mate Watkins.

Fair comment. What we saw today is pretty much what we've been seeing at Wigan for the last few months of the season. He's come on so much in a such a short space of time that I suppose it's not surprising that many, including yourself, were a little sceptical of his inclusion. It did seem very early. However, he's taken his club form seamlessly into the international arena and taken his chance with both hands. He's not the finished article by any means and I'm sure there'll be both good and bad still to come. I think few can doubt his credentials now though. I thought Wilkin's comparison to Matt Gidley was particularly telling. If he continues his current rate of improvement he could well become the type of centre England (or GB!) hasn't seen since Martin Gleeson and that would be most welcome!

Briscoes lack of tries is more due to Delaney at second row on the right, who also restricts Watkins(who I think many seem to be writing off a little too early).

Wasn't convinced by Sarg when we signed him but it has to be said he really is a very good player already and potentially could be a very special player. His footwork and dynamic strength is very special.

Watkins I rate highly but his defence is a real issue. Going forward he is very good but his decisions in defence and his failure to stick to the patterns is a real weakness.

Watkins defense has certainly dropped off this season.
Thought he was unlucky when Hodgson was slow to cover leaving Watkins exposed.
I don't think Joel Tomkins helps with his reading of the play either And OLoughlin totally mis read the chip for the Hunt try.
But let's blame Watkins for the loss hey?

Everyone makes mistakes, sunshine. Did you see the one he took with 3 or 4 Australian players around him? I'd like to see any other winger in rugby [either code] take that ball. Charnley didn't have the best game, but I still feel he's a better option than Budgie. Can you imagine the slating he would get if he'd cost us that game? That type of abuse could really affect a young player's confidence.

I cannot understand how Joel Tomkins is even in the team. Elliott Whitehead was superb throughout the season. There is no comparison between the two on last season's performances. O'Loughlin's main contribution was to give penalties away. He does not seem fit. His injury problems have severely affected his performance. Both were included on past reputation not current form. Westerman played well against Samoa and should have kept his place. I can understand Wigan fans trumpeting O'Loughlin's inclusion as when he is fit is arguably the best 13 we have. That is not at this moment in time though.

It beats me why people feel the need to look for changes constantly. The lads did us proud on Saturday and but for a dodgy video ref call would have won the game. All the Wigan lads played well with Sarg a standout on debut. I thought Sam was back to his best too.

This is going to seem strange, but the person I feel most sorry for is the coach. If we lose on Saturday against NZ then his job will go to someone else for sure and yet we should already be in the final against NZ. Sport has a way of kicking you in the plums. I thought McNamara was poor at the WC but this is an improvement.

He has lost his best player in Sam Burgess and arguably his second best in James Roby and yet still put out a decent team that played well against an admittedly weaker than usual Aussie team (although any team with Cronk, Inglis, Smith, Jennings and Bird in it isn't going to be too shabby).

I think there is something to build on here. Hall was superb as were the entire pack. The halves looked like proper halves too unlike the shambles at the World Cup with Chase and Sinfield.

Why feel sorry for the coach? He is the one responsible for our poor showing over the last few matches. He was the one that picked Chase and Sinfield that resulted in the shambles as you describe it. He was the one who picked Joel T when he has done nothing since his return to warrant it. He was the one to pick O'L when he obviously was not fit. He should have gone after the world cup but no his post was downgraded to part time and he can do whilst on the other-side if the world. What coaching success has he had? His stint at the Bulls was an unmitigated disaster. We have one of our strongest sides for some time, the Aussies were at their weakest and we could not beat them. It is too simplistic to blame one dodgy decision. We outplayed the Aussies in the first half yet changed tactics for the second instead of pressing our advantage. If we had we would have won the match. The coach was responsible for that.

Do you honestly believe that McNamara told the players to play more conservative in the second half?
Why would he do that?

What happened was that England didn't make as many metres in the second half so the kickers were in general kicking from inside their own forty rather than the Aussies forty and consequently we couldn't put as much pressure on their back three. Then when the Aussies did make a mistake in their own half we lost the ball on the first tackle and then gave away a soft penalty to invite them close to the line.
With players like Cameron Smith and Inglis playing against you it's then only a matter of time before they get you.

Something must have happened at half time. When things were not happening for us whether it was the coach's second half tactics or the players that were not doing what they were told plan B should have been implemented. We did not seem to have a plan B. Coaches get the plaudits when thing go right they must expect the flack when they don't. I was interested to note that from my post you only felt it necessary to comment on that one point.

The thing that happened was that

a)GI was told to get his finger out and do something
B) the ref decided to look only one way when penalising a team

Any team, but even more so an Australian team, will punish you when they get handed easy position through pens - or don't hand the ball over due to not conceding pens.

All Australia's 2nd half tries came from possession given to Australia on the back of refs decisions or non decisions.

Just look

I think sheens made a big call bringing hunt on and playing with 3 halves. They moved us around then which give GI the space he needed.

Also the Aussies speeded up the play the ball which killed us.

Playing with 3 halves was a clever move, poo poo'd by the TV experts at the time...